Category: GOP / DEM

Posted on

Buckle up for 4 more years of Obama Bashing and pissing contests

Images

Romney may be going down in flames…

Not because he said anything wrong…

Well ok, approximately 46% of our population don’t pay taxes and he said 47%. And he should have been more precise… Federal Taxes… 

Romney isn’t being destroyed because of imprecision. He’s being destroyed for telling the truth.

If you do the math, one way or another 46% of our population isn’t paying federal taxes. Guess what? They’re NOT breaking the law. 

A large percentage of them are retired folks, remember the baby boomers??? Well they’re still retiring!

Social Security by definition makes them dependent on the government. It should be remembered that Social Security is technically a term life insurance policy that they have paid into all of their working lives.

Yes, they’re dependent on the government to dispense their money. But NO SSI doesn’t represent an “Entitlement” program. The SSI recipients don’t pay Federal Taxes, nor should they.

Then there are the working poor, they make money, but usually don’t make enough to cross the Federal Tax threshold. Not only don’t they pay taxes… They shouldn’t pay taxes!

Mixed in there somewhere are the perpetual victims, we all know they exist why deny it?

There are always people in any society for whom nothing you do to ease their burden is ever enough. These people are 100% dependent on the government. And they don’t pay taxes either.

So Romney was right and wrong. The problem is that what he said and the way he said it, sounded bad. 

He’s absolutely right that 46% of America is in all likelihood not going to vote for him.  It wouldn’t be in their best interests because they’re as afraid of him cutting social services, as the Republicans are of President Obama expanding social services.

Romney, rather than wasting time trying to convince the hard sells is making a conscious choice to focus on those folks that can swing the election his way.

President Obama is doing the same thing. He’s not bothering to focus on the hardline Republicans. The President is rightly concentrating on those swing voters whose votes will carry him to a win in this election.

So why is it right for one candidate and wrong for the other one? It’s not. Each candidate must ignore those people who won’t carry them to victory and do only what is going to insure them winning.

The truth notwithstanding it’s likely that Romney will loose because of media spin and the choice of the American People to believe exactly what they’re told on TV. I wouldn’t mind our candidates winning or losing based on facts and truth.

No doubt, we all remember the poisonous vitriol the media hurled (rightly so, in many cases.) at former President Bush.

The same venom is being heard time and again regarding Republicans in general, even when they’re agreeing with their Democratic counterparts.

One can get a full measure by simply listening to the difference in reports covering the Tea Party and Occupy (what ever this week). The former are portrayed as nut jobs the latter are spun as victims. I view them as two sides of the same coin. (Another blog post entirely to justify that statement.)

I cringe to think the office of the President of the United States hinges on who makes the best commercial or who the media likes versus the choice being made by informed voters.

Obviously I took a wrong turn because I’m living in a Kardashian / Snookie world.

If you happen to see a door to a real world, please give me a call…

Posted on

Romneys Headaches

You almost have Ap mitt romney leaked tapes dm 120918 wblogto feel sorry for the guy.

I also find the timing of the release of this videos  very interesting… Now the media is picking up on the comments and blowing them way out of proportion. 

I don’t necessarily agree with the guy on all points but I sure as hell believe that he’s entitled to say stuff privately without being recorded and having those recordings posted all over the internet.

Thus far he’s said that “47% of the population is going to vote for Obama because they’re dependent on government.” 

You know that’s probably about right 47% of the population is going to vote for Obama without a doubt…

Just look at the 2008 election,

52.9% of the voters voted for Obama, 45.7% of voters voted for McCain. That’s actually a pretty close split between the Democratic and Republican parties.

If you go back to 2004 Bush 50.7% Kerry 48.3%

2000 election 47.9% Bush, 48.4% Gore… Yes! That’s not a typo! That’s what Wikipedia says…

Bush won because of the electoral college. By sheer votes of The People, Al Gore should have been President.

This opens a whole other discussion about the electoral college and why I think it should be disbanded.

However that discussion will have to wait.

The point I’m making here is that the past 3 Presidential elections have been won or lost by a pretty narrow percentage of the peoples vote. The 2008 election had the highest voter turn out of the previous 3 Presidential elections 63% No matter what you may think of President Obama, you have to admit that his candidacy energized the voter base, and that’s a good thing.

Romney is in trouble for saying it, and then qualifying his 47% comment with the following;

“… who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”

I don’t agree about the no income tax part… But in general I think he’s making a valid observation. I have personal knowledge of a specific group of people in this country who perceive themselves as victims and entitled all the time no matter what!

The people who are dependent on government, NO MATTER THE REASON will vote for President Obama.

It’s obviously in their best interest.

Romney is right, there is nothing he can do or say that will win these people over, short of becoming a democrat and making the same promises the democratic party does.

Why is this such a big deal?

For god sake we have a candidate that spoke the truth as he sees it.  He’s taking the heat and he’s not backing down from his position.

Isn’t that what we want? Leadership?

We don’t have to hang on the Presidents every word, we don’t’ have to agree with every position, We need a President that speaks his mind, has conviction, and who is strong enough not to wither in the heat of battle.

We do need a President that when faced with facts that contradict his opinion is capable of gracefully accepting the new information, incorporating then new data and moving forward.

The problem is, so many of the entrenched politicians in Washington and in the various state government for that matter are fat, dumb and happy. They’re safely ensconced in the halls of power and know it’s not in their best interest to rock the boat, so they don’t. Business as usual in Washington is the way of things.

In this election we need not only a President who is a LEADER we also need politicians in Washington to be leaders. If our politicians aren’t going to lead, then they need to follow. A strong President who’s direct and upfront might be just what we need to make Washington work for a change.

I loved this comment from Jim Messina, Obama for America campaign manager,  “It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.”

I seem to recall that in 2008 Election President Obama disdainfully dismissed the “Flyover States” however I can’t find the reference now so I could be incorrect.

We all have our likes, dislikes, opinions and preconceived notions.

Saying that half the country isn’t going to vote for you is not writing those people off. It’s a statement of opinion and doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve written this people off. In fact, it could mean that you’re going to be more sensitive to their situation. Although I don’t think we haven’t seen too much of that kind of thinking about the “Flyover States” from the Obama administration.

Romney is also taking heat about comments that he made about Palestine

He’s quoted as saying Palestine is “committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel and are uninterested in peace.”

Again… from the observable evidence… this is a true statement.

After all, you don’t keep randomly lobbing RPGs and other explosives into residential neighborhoods if you’re really interested in peace.

Lets give the guy credit where credit is due. 

He’s demonstrating the kind of leadership that a President should, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the statements. At least Romney has a set of balls.

Anybody heard about the new digs Obama is, or has purchased in Hawaii? I thought he & Michelle were going to move back to their Chicago digs after his term in office. After all Chicago is a gun free crime free paradise.

Yeah a little snarky but It’s my blog…

 

Posted on

While I’m not meaning to defend the wealthy… I have to ask.

Lately, there have been tonFeng shui wealths of politicians and Über Liberals doing a lot of talking about the Wealthy.

I really don’t get it on a number of levels.

1) Why is it wrong to single out certain Other groups for special treatment or discussion but not the wealthy?

2) Why do politicians or the general populace think it’s OK to levy higher taxes on this small group?  (Sounds like discrimination to me. You’d never get away with it if instead of wealthy you said Muslims, or Mexicans. )

3) What happened to that concept of “Equally distributing the burden“? Why is it apparently OK to force the wealthy to pay more?

Politician

Don’t get me wrong, the wealthy have done nothing to warrant my love or concern. Like most Americans I’ve suffered, and continue to suffer at their hands.

Here are some examples the Politicians and Occupy Whatever cite. You’ll get no argument from me about the abuses. Although most politicians avoid the H1B1 issue. Democratic politicians usually won’t comment on Offshoring but some Republicans and the Teaparty will.

Offshoring / Downsizing / H1B1 Abuses (It’s bullshit to import someone from India or offshore when you’ve got unemployed American workers with the same training and who speak, read, write the language well & who understand the culture. The ONLY difference between the H1B1 Visa worker / Offshore workers, and the American worker is that the H1B1 worker will work like a slave, kiss ass, suck cock, and generally do ANYTHING to bolster his bosses ego to stay in this country or keep their jobs. Including but not limited to implementing “Solutions” that are wrong on their face, just because they’re too scared of deportation or being fired to point out that the proposed “Solution” isn’t going to work. I can’t count how many millions I’ve personally seen wasted this way)

Oil prices (Lets be real here… The wind blowing from the West doesn’t justify a speculative panic that drives up crude prices.)

Banking abuses / Bad Mortgages / Housing implosion

Pension / 401k devaluation

However, as abusive of the system and people as the wealthy are, (THIS INCLUDES HOLLYWOOD ACTORS AND The KARDASHIANS), it’s still no reason to single them out for special taxation.

Let’s look at the pure math of the situation.

If I make $95,000 and I pay 20% in taxes then I pay $19,000

If a wealthy person makes $250,000 and pays 20% in taxes they pay $50,000 

SO obviously the wealthy are already paying more into the system.

Isn’t it unfair to say the wealthy have to pay 40%? Isn’t that just pure greed on the part of the politicians?

Stairliftsuk

I know that the poor would pitch a bitch fit if THEY were called upon to pay higher taxes. This would be especially true if someone constructed a case that went something like this.

The poor are more of a burden on the society. They require more government services, offices, and assistance. The poor also require a disproportionate level of emergency medical care per capita. Therefore the tax on all people below the poverty line will be 25% in an effort to cover their disproportionate burden on the society at large.

Of course you could make the same case for the elderly paying higher taxes too.

Can you even imagine? There’d be riots in the streets. The elderly from the old folks homes would be tossing molotov cocktails from their motorized chairs and golf carts.

“Harold… Harold… stop the cart! I just tossed my catheter bag at that Bentley! We’ve got to go back those things are $15 a piece.”

“Aww screw it Betty just hang the hose at the side of the cart, you can piss on Beverly Hills as we head back to the home! Now throw the burning bottle at the Kardashian house!”

We see the obvious wrongness of disproportionately taxing the poor or the elderly.

Why is it that we choose not to see that same unfairness in disproportionately taxing the wealthy? (I could however get behind a “SPECIAL” tax on the big mouths in the entertainment industry.)

There are those that would rightly point out, the wealthy often use all kinds of tricks to avoid paying their full measure of taxes.

While this is entirely true, I have to ask how many of us look for those same exact loopholes and deductions? The difference is the wealthy simply have better accountants and lawyers.

I’ve long wanted a simple flat tax. I think that would stop the wealthy, politicians, industry, & everyone else from playing games.

IRS1

Here’s my wish list for tax reform.

15% flat tax across the board right off the top for everyone! No exceptions!

No more IRS filing, No more April 15th, No more IRS at all.

I’ve thought that if we eliminated the IRS and stopped changing tax laws yearly the country could save a fortune in office supplies alone. We’d also save money because Congress wouldn’t be debating new tax codes and would get on with other business.

There would of course be corporations who might require additional assistance calculating their tax burden but I suspect that the Government Accounting Office could handle those audits.

If you’re unemployed, you get to raid your 401k or pension with NO penalties and tax free. Raiding your retirement is NEVER a good idea, but if it keeps you from becoming a burden or loosing your house you shouldn’t be penalized for doing it.

We should make sure that our Government felt the pinch of a poor economy just as keenly as the people.

Since the politicians salaries are funded from tax dollars, their salaries should be indexed to the GDP, Government Debt, and Stock Market.

As it is now, they get paid either way. Why not change their pay structure to give them some incentive?

Make it something like As the GDP and stock markets fall, and Debt increases the salaries for our politicians decline proportionately. Hopefully something like that would focus our politicians attention on actually tending to the country instead of grandstanding and not working together.

If you wrote the equation as simply as possible you could have the politicians seeing their salaries increase and decrease directly coupled to the financial heartbeat of the country.

It’s possible that the politicians could even see negative cash-flow, meaning that in addition to the FLAT tax they and everyone else pay, politicians could conceivably have to write a check and pay for the privilege of really crappy governance.

I bet, we’d see fewer dishonest politicians and more that were genuinely interested in the country doing well under this kind of pay schedule.

Caption

I know that my wish list will never be fulfilled. I also realize that some of my ideas aren’t possible and are too simplistic.

I do think that every single one of us, rich, poor, or middle class realizes it’s time for some serious changes to the way our government collects and uses money.

I don’t think that setting a special tax rate for a specific group of people is the right or fair way to go.